Dear Editor,
The political parties in Guyana should consider emulating the action of the ruling PNM in Tobago, part of the binary state of Trinidad and Tobago, in allowing party members to choose the leader; elections for the PNM leadership in Tobago were held last week. Whoever is party leader goes on to become Chief Secretary (equivalent of recent Chief Minister) if the party wins the elections to the island’s Assembly.
Unlike in the case of Guyana’s parties, the PNM allows members of the party to choose its leadership in one person one vote. This process eliminates feelings of alienation in party affairs and also reduces inclinations of authoritarianism by incumbents. It was the UNC that first used this process some fifteen years ago to choose the leader and other executives of the party, although then party leader Basdeo Panday refused to heed the outcome because he endorsed candidates who lost in a landslide sweep by his challenger Ramesh Maharaj, the indefatigable corruption fighter. The PNM, under Keith Rowley’s leadership, imitated the UNC’s move three years ago when choosing its national executives. The PNM goes further than the UNC requiring its leader to win the post by a majority of votes; if no candidate gets a majority, there is a run-off between the top two candidates as is the norm in primary elections in New York City if no candidates gets a minimum threshold (40%).
The parties in Guyana use the delegate system. Year after year, there were reports of irregularities in all three parties (PPP, PNC, AFC). The delegate system is stacked against challengers. Those in control of the system often decide who should be the delegates and select those who will vote their way. The system needs to be changed to a genuinely democratic one. The members of the party should be allowed to choose their leaders as well as the executives who control the affairs of the party and who should be candidates for office (including the presidency). Had this system been place, many of the problems facing the parties would have been avoided.
Had the PPP, for example, allowed party members to vote on the presidential nominee in 2011, the party support would not have split. Had the PNC allowed its members to choose party leadership in 2006, some of its base would not have been peeled off by the AFC. Had the PPP allowed a democratic vote, Ralph Ramkarran or Moses Nagamootoo would probably have emerged as the presidential candidate and the party going on to win a majority in parliament. Five years later, that party still has not learnt a lesson from its mistake. It continues to do business the same way and expect a different result – a different outcome in parliamentary elections will not happen without reforms.
The PPP and the other parties must democratize their internal functioning. They must allow democratic elections for leadership (all executive posts – Ex Co, Central Committee, Politburo, General Secretary, Chairman, etc) of the party. Let the members choose their leadership as is being done in the US at every level (community, borough, city, state, national) of party functioning in America.
If the parties are unwilling to reform and allow their members to decide on the leadership, then the members should take the parties to court; the parties are violating the primary norm and principle of democracy – one person, one vote. Parties in the US had at one time functioned in a similar way to the PPP, PNC, and AFC under a delegate system. Americans challenged the parties in court that directed the parties to hold internal democratic elections allowing all their members to vote. The same must be done in Guyana. It is about time they change from what Jagan and Burnham left behind.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram